Look at de state of Cork, like!
- This topic has 1,897 replies, 111 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
@Aidan wrote:
In terms of the cost of this, would it not be better to look at reopening the Midleton-Youghal railway line?
Unfortunately, no. The costs of running the Midleton line to Youghal, at least in the medium term, are a lot higher than you’d expect, and the additional traffic generated would be much less that that required to run a service. Prioblem is that Youghal isn’t that big, it doesn’t have the capacity to generate that much extra critical mass. Midleton is being developed at the pace it is precisely because it does have extant critical mass to require such services, and it already has significant transport infrastructure.
Additionally, a lot of the traffic on that section of the N25 isn’t local, it isn’t really that much of a commuter route, its a major route for heavy transport (read trucks). Upgrading the road is required anyways, the increase in business in the area is putting the network under severe pressure. Putting a sizeable park n’ride in Midleton, with enough trainsets to run a proper service, in addition to improved roads on the Midleton-Youghal section is the chosen solution for a reason. Whether it works out like that is a different matter.
In any case, the railway alignment will remain in public hands. Who knows, in 20 years, when Midleton is a city in its own right (!), the maybe extending it will be an option. It isn’t now.
Isn’t the N25 a designated Euro Route?
🙁 Aldi Stores Developments are to withdraw their multimillion euro development application for the Heiton Buckley site on Tory Top Road, following extensive talks with CCC. A number of objections were lodged against the development by local residents and businesses. The application consisted of the development of 48 duplex apartments over 6, 4-storey blocks, an Aldi Discount Store, a creche and 7 additional retail units. The pleasantly designed development is to be replaced with, what I personally view as a lesser project, in the form of a revised and scaled-down proposal. The new application, to be lodged by next week, will see a reduced floor-space Aldi store (1,560sq m), 2 retail units (one at basement level), a medical centre, creche and 41 residential units consisting of 5 2-bedroom duplex apartments as part of a 3-storey block, 18 2-bedroom terraced dwelling houses as well as 9 1-bedroom apartments and 9 2-bedroom duplexes in a further 3-storey block. Design is again by Carew Kelly Architects.
Previous incarnation of the development – now to be withdrawn.
@Pana01 wrote:Back to the architecture – anyone know what will be built in the Beasly Street car park site, backing onto Parnell Place, and when it will commence?
Pitwood Ltd and Michael & Kevin Corbett are currently compiling Further Information on their application to develop a luxury 5-storey, 80,000sq ft 121-bedroom hotel with dual-basement car-park and basement spa. Niall Fitzsimons are the engineers. The original Parnell Place facades are set to be refurbished and incorporated. There has however been some rustling in the bushes about the project – I’ll let you know more soon.
:rolleyes: Yes, engineer (among other things), John Paul Lennon is to again lodge a new application, under his wife’s name, Maria, with CCC to develop a new ‘Ponte Vecchio’-style bridge spanning St. Patrick’s Quay to Anderson’s Quay. Mr. Lennon had previously attempted to develop a similar bridge at the same location back in 1998, but was refused on the grounds that it would disrupt the excellent vista enjoyed by Leesiders along the Northern Channel – among other reasons. Last year, Mr. Lennon – through Sean Meehan – withdrew an O.P.P. application to develop a 3-deck multi-storey car-park with commercial units and link bridge at Grenville Place following a prompt by CCC that they would not permit such a development at the location.
Now, with the help of architect Sam Stephenson, Mr. Lennon is at it again – his application will enter planning in O.P.P. form and request permission for a bridge with a 5-storey structure constructed along its span. The structure will contain a shopping arcade, public pedestrian crossings, 8-apartments on 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors w/ 6 penthouses on the fourth floor.
Novel as the idea may be, it is unsuited to the location and completely impractical. The massing would be a disruptive hinderance to the river vista and city overall. The project is valued at just under 30m euros.
🙂 Cork Airport’s new terminal development, which now has 2 air-bridges secured, is expected to receive the remaining 2 air-bridges – to bring the total to the original planned 4 as part of the 1st Phase. The first 2 airbridges will be installed on completion of the terminal, with the other 2 being installed at an unspecified future date – subject to funding. This comes after speculative enquiries. The 4 airbridge links are being constructed as is – anyone who has passed by the new development will see this – however, only 2 actual airbridges themselves have been secured in a ridiculous fiasco concerning cost savings by the DAA (the airbridges by the way are under 475,000euro in value each, versus the 140m euro bill on the terminal).
😉 Anyone who has passed the OFC Eglinton Street site recently will have noted the erection of 2 faceless ‘billboards’ facing Albert Road and the South City Link. A move of confidence by OFC? Advertising billboards erected in advance of a decision (July 7th 2005)? Frankly, I don’t know what the billboards are being erected for – but what I do know, is that so far, the revised submission for Eglinton Street seems to be meeting planning approval, with a certain Senior Planner hinting that the development will be greenlit. We wait in anticipation!
[font=Arial:orum7dor]I know we've moved on from the Midleton-Youghal talk, but I really think that re-opening the line would be a very good solution to the road problems. Espeically during the summer months, it's often I've had to wait for an hour to get into the town. The recently opened by-pass took alot of the brunt, thank god. But railway would be good idea for alot of commuters to Little Island. Also, that is really good news about the airport. Would be delighted if we got our original four airbridges, but talk about wasting time, just put the extra two in already, not hanging around waiting for another ten years and then deciding not to spend the money! Good news about Eglington Street too![/font:orum7dor]
What I don’t understand about the trans-Lee development proposal is how the applicant can display ownership or consent from the superior land-holder to develop the land between the two holdings that would be above a third party holding.
Re Midleton to Youghal potential extension I understand from the Development plan variation that the alignment is protected and one could potentially speculate that if a quantum of proposals were to emerge that a viable service would be possible. I have to say that the CASP document is a first in planning history in that two juristicitions were able to go beyond local politics to deliver the best solution possible, maybe the fact that you all wear the same county jersey helped? 1990 was a good year 😀
I’ll post the relevant section from section 5.2 if anyone wants it
@Thomond Park wrote:
I would be very surprised if that proposal will clear planning it is dreadful, in my experience retailers like buildings in the right locations with a high proportion of glazing, they do not like signing leases heads of terms and then not being able to sign a lease.
Are e-project or a connected party]https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3631&page=2&highlight=eden+quay[/url]
I was actually looking at the Eden Quay project when I was up in Dublin there last Thursday – the last time I had seen it, Rohcon were still on site. I don’t think The e-Project were involved in its design but I’m open to correction. You can see what the designers were going for, but they missed…horribly. It looks so awkward, blocky and just unsightly. As with the plans for the Capitol Cineplex in Cork, its position is much more prominent given the context. Both developers and architects will need to make MAJOR revisions if the development is to be made even semi-acceptable – w.r.t. to its current design. A truly awful effort – and comfortably joins the leagues of Derek Tynan & Associates’ projects throughout Cork.
What I didn’t like about the renderings was the angle it was taken from, it would have made it nigh on impossible to assess the effect of the setbacks. The Eden Quay project had a German name and a Waterford Address of that I am sure
@Thomond Park wrote:
What I didn’t like about the renderings was the angle it was taken from, it would have made it nigh on impossible to assess the effect of the setbacks. The Eden Quay project had a German name and a Dungarvan Address of that I am sure
Both the Capitol and Eden Quay projects seem to suffer from the same horrid set backs – and are both former cinema sites. However, as far as I know, Tritschler Tritschler & Associates were involved with Eden Quay. Sabine Wittman is the MD with The e-Project. Clearly, both parties have no accountancy for taste.
With regards the Lennon ‘Ponte Vecchio’ project, the whole project is really a crazed fantasy. Its impractical, locational, visual and disruptional. CCC have plans to erect a pedestrian bridge at this location in the future (although its further up along Merchants Quay) with the intention of opening up Patrick’s Quay for inclusion in an extended CCRA (Core Commercial Retail Area). It’s a bit altogether, but Mr. Lennon has a history for these types of projects.Tritschler Tritschler & Associates. 21 Williams Street Waterford Telephone: 051
878138 Fax: 051 879955. Activity: Architects. Overall Management: …
http://www.businessworld.ie/coys/details.htm?u=2934 – 17kYou are right
In regard to the Lennon project how do they propose to get landowners consent for the river that they most likely don’t own? as the Dublin Port Tunnel has bourne out ownership is the land below and the sky above.
@Thomond Park wrote:
In regard to the Lennon project how do they propose to get landowners consent for the river that they most likely don’t own? as the Dublin Port Tunnel has bourne out ownership is the land below and the sky above.
I don’t fully understand the rights issues of the situation – I believe it is subject to negotiation between CCC and Mr. Lennon. It’s funny how the Dublin Port Tunnel brought about numerous new lines of legislation to support its development. Under new guidelines, a land-owner is only subject to ownership no more than 30-feet below their land holding. The same principle is being applied to land/home-owners whose properties stand in the way of the new Cork Northern Ring Road proposal and there is fury over it. Certain parts of the road have proposed tunnel sections to it in order to facilitate various contours. From a surveyance and engineering perspective it is most interesting.
– by the way, for anyone interested in the Ring Road proposal, route selection is at an advanced stage and I may have some info on the final 2 routings soon.
🙂 Paul Montgomery is to apply to CorkCoCo to develop 169 houses and a childcare facility at Ballyleary in Cobh. The project adds to the list of developments currently associated with Mr. Montgomery, including Victoria Mills Phase 2, the Boreenmanna Road project, his Douglas development in association with Tom McCarthy and delvings in an Event Centre plan.
🙂 Fleming Construction will erect a tower crane on site within the next week over their site at Victoria Cross for which they will develop 45-student apartments over a number of 4 to 5 storey blocks on behalf of UCC. Already progress on the site is steaming ahead. Directly next-door, Ridge Developments are working away at the Victoria Mills Phase 2 site for which 31 further student apartments are to be constructed over a basement car-park and commercial unit. Pity about the design for such a pretty location.
😉 And I can confirm that IAWS have been conducting a number of studies on their R&H Hall Weybridge premises along Kennedy Quay. Engineers have recently been on site assessing details regarding silo structures. Hmmm. More details when I get them.[QUOTE=lexington]:D Following incalcuable trials and tribulations, 2 designs later, Mark Kelleher (of the Kelleher family, former owners of the Bishopstown Bar [which recently was sold to Mr. Horgan for 8m euros!] among other properties), has been given the greenlight by CCC planner Evelyn Mitchell for 53 of the 73 residential units planned for a collective of adjoining sites off Curraheen Road at Westend near Bishopstown. The project, pleasantly designed by Frank Ennis & Associates, received over 124 seperate objections for residents, groups (like CAHRA) and local councillors – and will be granted subject to the removal of an entire section, the 20-units of Block C.
I’m very glad that CCC saw through the substantial cock-and-bull in the logic of many of these objections (too often over-lapping – and many more referring to the details of the previous incarnation of the development!) – which objection often on the grounds of the developments ‘high-rise’ nature (of 3/4-storeys – depending on how you see the mansard roof). :rolleyes: This is a positive move. Unfortunately, Jerry Buttimer and posse have informed me that an appeal will be sought, one individual stated that ”high-rise is suitable in other cities, but not Cork”. I take it we should tear down every house and building 4-storeys and over then, right?
😡 Did you ever wonder what residents would think of this, or were all those complaints and challenges not enough to tip you off? Of course adding so many people to a relitivly quiet area will make traffic volumes soar. Not to mention the eye sore all those buildings will be.Residants who now have view of the countryside will have the inspiring view of a grey wall.How nice. Also, I don’t care about four-storey buildings in the city but this is the suburbs! A place where people live to get away from traffic and huge ugly buildings!
Of course, I cannot conclude my arguement without mentioning that putting so many apartments and townhouses in that small area will send the property value plummeting.I wonder, will mr. kelleher care what type of people come here? Or will he only care about getting paid?
I know someone else agreed that this was a good idea but honestly I cant see why anyone could think this is a good idea!Unless of course they are the annoying business people who want to turn the Emerald Isles into the Grey Isles!
@snoopdog wrote:
😡 Did you ever wonder what residents would think of this, or were all those complaints and challenges not enough to tip you off? Of course adding so many people to a relitivly quiet area will make traffic volumes soar. Not to mention the eye sore all those buildings will be.Residants who now have view of the countryside will have the inspiring view of a grey wall.How nice. Also, I don’t care about four-storey buildings in the city but this is the suburbs! A place where people live to get away from traffic and huge ugly buildings!
Of course, I cannot conclude my arguement without mentioning that putting so many apartments and townhouses in that small area will send the property value plummeting.I wonder, will mr. kelleher care what type of people come here? Or will he only care about getting paid?
I know someone else agreed that this was a good idea but honestly I cant see why anyone could think this is a good idea!Unless of course they are the annoying business people who want to turn the Emerald Isles into the Grey Isles!
I’m glad you brought this point to mention – its good to have an alternative perspective, however, I would ask you to address the issues concerning this site (sites!): First of all, the development is predominantly 2-storeys with Block C rising to 3-storeys (w/ mansard roof). This is generally in line with the heights of surrounding buildings and does not constitute ‘high-rise’ as was highlighted by so many of the lodged objections. You may note, that I recognised the validity of many of the objections in earlier posts but believed that they could be addressed through conditions, which they indeed were (such as the balcony issue of overlooking in Block D – now since removed). Consequentially, Block C (the highest element at 3-storeys) was ultimately omitted – reducing unit numbers substantially. If height was an issue – and density – well this condition has certainly reduced the suspect of such concerns. The remaining development falls very much in line with surrounding buildings. My point is this – if 2-storeys is not acceptable in this area, does that mean none of the surrounding housing is valid either? Because that is the logic implied in many of the submissions.
Even before the block omission, the revised application was deemed well inside the acceptable levels outlined by The Residential Density Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment in September 1999. Quantitative and qualitative public and private open space requirements for residential developments are contained in Paragraphs 11.19 – 25 of the Cork City Development Plan, 2004. The public and private open space standards have been modified in the revised application to reflect the standards set by the aforementioned guidelines. Open space for the scheme is provided in a mix of private, semi private and public open space – the contributive amenity value attributed to the revised scheme is in fact greater than, or equal to, any equivalent amenity space currently provided for by the existing site (were it to be utilised for such), this was a point also noted by senior planner Evelyn Mitchell. In relation to public/semi-private open space is provided at ground level to the rear of the site in excess of 10% of the site area and had also been provided for in a roof terrace within Block C. A condition was passed, in line with developer intentions, so that communal access was to be made available to this open space area.
As for the argument of the ‘countryside view’ – the site is located within an urban framework with existing structures on most fronts. This is simply an in-fill site and does not represent ‘countryside’ – in fact, the site in its current form is neither safe nor enjoyable as an amenity for any individual to venture, this admittedly, is the responsibility of the land-owner to secure, however, as it remains private property – those who venture through the site for amenity purposes should consider the consequences of their actions. If by countryside views, you mean views facing toward that south of Bishopstown Court – then I should ask you to look at this perspective again and tell me how much of that countryside is truly visible? Then ask, what exactly is visible? Then consider that this perspective is only ‘enjoyed’ from one site elevation and the area in view is subject to a new medical/hospice development by Beacon Court and St. Patrick’s Hospice for the terminally ill.
I admittedly have not read through all 124 submissions, but have read a great proportion of them – many of the arguments defy logic, I don’t accept farsical arguments that do not apply to the project at heart. It is more than evident, that many submissions were made without any knowledge of the revised scheme – nor had any of the drawings been assessed at the planning offices.
CCC have responded in part to some of the relevant objections to the scheme but have also filtered out some of the more spurious arguments. As for design and finishings, please indicate to me the concrete ‘grey walls’ areas of the project? The scheme has been very tastefully designed by Frank Ennis & Associates to not only add but build on the quality environment of this suburban location. Frank Ennis & Associates have generally positive track record in Cork – and indeed, Bishopstown (please refer to the scheme by Myraoak Ltd [David Corr and Joe McCarthy et al] at the former Tennis Village – a scheme noted by one member of CAHRA, surprisingly as being of a good aesthetic design – but of course, too high!!! [4 storeys] Frank Ennis also have another Bishopstown design evident in the refurbished Bishopstown Bar – formerly owned by Mr. Kelleher’s family). Have you seen the designs first hand? Associated guide prices on the sale of the development units are pitched at a particular clientele to reflect the existing resident mix. I reject the argument you make about tenants on the grounds that you cannot cherry-pick occupants in the way you seem to prescribe – the house next-door to you could just as easily be purchased by a resident or residents who may not conform to the standards you pitch for your community. A development, such as Mr. Kelleher’s, regardless of a units guide price cannot guarantee the type of occupant – income does not represent integrity – and even without the development, there is no way to guarantee your neighbour. I am all for maintaining a community’s values and traditions – but that doesn’t mean the neighbourhood must close itself from the rest of the world. This is however a protracted social argument.
As for traffic generation, both the Roads Department and NRA felt no objection was warranted given that Mr. Kelleher and the design team had worked in conjunction with nearby site owners to allow for adjustments to routings that would inhibit any on street back-logging. As a residential development – the majority of traffic will be either based in workplaces or in the underground car-park for the majority of the day. This would be contrary to the proposal made by Bishopstown GAA for example – that in fact, encourages traffic movements in an enclosed residential area.
Furthermore, historically and evidently, property prices do not generally decline in light of such development – must often the opposite occurs. For example, the development of the Lapps Quay area sent neighbouring property values soaring. The same too for Victoria Cross – residential and site.
I whole-heartedly agree that we must maintain a standard of development from preventing the formation of this ‘Grey Isle’ you speak of. There have been and unfortunately continue to be a number of unacceptable design standards placed upon the city – Victoria Mills, Crosses Green Hotel, 16 Lavitts Quay and the redevelopment of the Capitol Cineplex are all poor standards of design and ideally should have or will be redesigned. For all the beluga thrown at Victoria Mills – its funny that the residents didn’t bring Phase 1 to ABP, nor did councillor Jerry Buttimer – for all his hugging of resident votes – when, as one poster mentioned, his local GAA clubs biggest supporter went to lodge the development in question, his voice was silent.
I will support and endorse any objectors where a development is clearly unacceptable, but I think Mr. Kelleher’s development has a lot more to do with petty ideology than genuine cause (with the exception of one or two of the objections).
Nonetheless snoopdog – your input is welcomed and it is good to hear the otherside of the spectrum. I would however, only ask you to consider some of the facts in place. 🙂
i thought this thread was 5 stars eh??? wats goin on lads? hehe. c’mon a little support please!
a 5 storey bridge? hmmm anyone for the taj mahal on south mall? mr lennon at this crack again, well good luck to him but i agree that this would mess up the views. i was just walking this area today and it would cock up the whole area – why doesnt he try it for a replacement to trinity bridge there near the college of knowledge instead? the river bend here would break up any impacts on the vistas this location provides. just an idea! hey when is the new kino being constructed? really looking forward to that.
While I am in no means appeased on this issue I will, ahhh, soften my words. I will admit that my main concern was for the future residents, for which I will take your word lexington, will not be a problem. I cannot debate the design of the building because to my knowledge the residents have not been given a design, only a diagram of where the buildings will be. The countryside view I mentioned refers to the two- storey houses that can see the hills and “country” beyond the other houses. In the past some areas were not allowed to build two-storey houses because they would block this view.
You have made reference to arguments that defy logic and call them farcical. I would very much like to hear one of these “farcical” points. It is obvious to me that you are a businessman because you cannot see why people do not want these buildings in their town. You seem astonished that people do not like the thought of tall buildings(even if they are only 3-4 storeys high)
Until more detail becomes available to me I will rest my case. I would however ask that you try to see this from the residents’ point of view. A number of apartments have come into this area very recently and still more forces people to wonder how many houses will be left in Bishopstown when this apartment explosion finishes
@snoopdog wrote:
While I am in no means appeased on this issue I will, ahhh, soften my words. I will admit that my main concern was for the future residents, for which I will take your word lexington, will not be a problem. I cannot debate the design of the building because to my knowledge the residents have not been given a design, only a diagram of where the buildings will be. The countryside view I mentioned refers to the two- storey houses that can see the hills and “country” beyond the other houses. In the past some areas were not allowed to build two-storey houses because they would block this view.
You have made reference to arguments that defy logic and call them farcical. I would very much like to hear one of these “farcical” points. It is obvious to me that you are a businessman because you cannot see why people do not want these buildings in their town. You seem astonished that people do not like the thought of tall buildings(even if they are only 3-4 storeys high)
Until more detail becomes available to me I will rest my case. I would however ask that you try to see this from the residents’ point of view. A number of apartments have come into this area very recently and still more forces people to wonder how many houses will be left in Bishopstown when this apartment explosion finishes
Believe you me, I am most sympathetic to this concern. Fear does come attached with the advent of the new – especially in established neighbourhoods. Most often, these neighbourhoods are rippled with horror stories regarding developments in other areas – but quite often, many of these are not warranted. Take the example of some of the residents along the Airport Road who contested the development of Cork Airport Business Park. Omnistone (the park’s primary developer) had been blasted with the condemnations of residents who feared that their small residential area would be destroyed by the impending construction of such a large business facility in their vicinity. Traffic generation, loss of privacy, decreased property values, noise pollution – all of the aforementioned, plus many more, were among the concerns highlighted. After extensive negotiations, Omnistone ultimately offered many of these residents with appeasements such as landscaped gardens, new pavings etc etc. This lowered some of the objectionist voices – but now, years on since the construction of the park – the same residents, when questioned, will reluctantly admit that they have not suffered the disamenities envisioned.
My own lodging has been threatened by impending developments too in the past – and at the present – but it is a matter of looking at the project in a neutral manner (quite often a difficult task when emotionally involved). You have to step back and say – “Right, there’s this development planned. My best position is a knowledgable one” – so you research the proposals, research related or like developments in similar areas, compare, contrast – and if there are genuinely more downs than ups – you utilise your knowledge gained to lodge a strong objection – supported by the facts and figures. Good, balanced research means a good case against the proposal. Planners pay more attention to these kind of arguments. Re: the Westend development – many of the objections were utterly lost (by the way, I have quoted some of these in previous posts if you’re interested) – others were quite valid. In my own circumstance, in the past – successful objections were made against at least 2 proposals which were quite inappropriate and in one case in legal violation. A more recent proposal made, I will not be objecting to (although many many others nearby will be and are). I have made this decision by weighing up and researching the situation. Some lodging the objections are quite frankly basing their positions solely on the word of mouth and the fear attached to the development – others are valid in their circumstance.
I suppose labelling businessmen as not understanding ‘human’ concerns is like labelling all Catholics in N.I. as Republicans – it simply isn’t accurate. Businessmen have homes too. They have families; concerns and beliefs.
I empthatise with your concerns – but don’t be taken in with the tide of fears and assumptions either. Stand up, research and decide for yourself a position on the development. Scare-mongering is a powerful method of persuasion. As you said yourself, you haven’t actually seen the designs in detail. I suggest you take a trip to Navigation House, sit-down and read through the application – it’s free to do so and your entitlement. Assess the drawings – even take a friend or an architect with you – and see whether or not this project genuinely endangers your living and your community in a purely negative way. You may surprise yourself – as I suspect many of the objectors to this case would be if they had done so.
I don’t believe in the whole apartment trend either – well, not in all cases – but remember that Mr. Kelleher’s proposal consists of a large proportion of traditional housing as well. Now with Block C axed – a near majority of housing. 🙂
@snoopdog wrote:
While I am in no means appeased on this issue I will, ahhh, soften my words. I will admit that my main concern was for the future residents, for which I will take your word lexington, will not be a problem. I cannot debate the design of the building because to my knowledge the residents have not been given a design, only a diagram of where the buildings will be. The countryside view I mentioned refers to the two- storey houses that can see the hills and “country” beyond the other houses. In the past some areas were not allowed to build two-storey houses because they would block this view.
You have made reference to arguments that defy logic and call them farcical. I would very much like to hear one of these “farcical” points. It is obvious to me that you are a businessman because you cannot see why people do not want these buildings in their town. You seem astonished that people do not like the thought of tall buildings(even if they are only 3-4 storeys high)
Until more detail becomes available to me I will rest my case. I would however ask that you try to see this from the residents’ point of view. A number of apartments have come into this area very recently and still more forces people to wonder how many houses will be left in Bishopstown when this apartment explosion finishes
Why is it people think developers should give them their drawings/ proposals when everyone is entitled to go into the Planning Department and view all of the files and drawings for free (as previously stated by Lexington). I know of a resisdent’s association who based their entire objection to ABP on this fact (that they were not provided with any drawings by the developer or architect) and the objection was obviously considered but deemed not of any consequence – the developer is under no obligation what so ever to provide drawings to anyone who wishes to object to a proposal and residents need to get with it and exercise their rigths by visiting the Planning Dept. 😡 So Snoopdog please at least have all the facts and view all the drawings before ranting about something you have only heard about second or maybe third hand from someone with a tainted view!
All that is wrong with the residents in Bishopstown is that the students will opt to rent these apartments which are superior over the houses and rooms that they let out. Luckily when I was in college in CIT I lived near the bus route serving the college cos I wouldnt let a dog live in some of the rooms (if you could call them that) that some of my class mates had to. Its about time the greedy houseowners were put in their place
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
